The Radical Academy Discussion Forum

anton

Aug 26, 07 - 4:07 PM

new stuff on universals

Is there a modern approach that provides -or propose- a modern comprehensible solution to the Uinversals problem ?
I tangentially dropped on this issue and found that current state of the question is no less obsecure than it was in XIII century. Browsed through some of the modern 'classics' on the subject, and nobody seems to offer a plausible solution, not even as a hypothesis.

Anybody has any fresh news ? What is it that is being taught at universities on this point ? maybe the best is still to avoid it and be safe ?

By the way, just out of curiosity, why the name 'radical' for the site ?

best wishes
anton

Ivo

Aug 27th, 2007 - 5:54 AM

Re: new stuff on universals

The Problem of Universals was never well formulated
http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.philosophy.objectivism/browse_thread/thread/6e9699d9e9e60e85/cfd04beddbe69b02#cfd04beddbe69b02

Kevin

Aug 28th, 2007 - 1:44 AM

Re: new stuff on universals

2007-08-28 01:03:18 Re: new stuff on universals

ANTON:
Is there a modern approach that provides -or propose -a modern comprehensible solution to the Uinversals problem?

REPLY, by ANTON:
I tangentially dropped on this issue and found that current state of the question is no less obsecure than it was in XIII century. Browsed through some of the modern 'classics' on the subject, and nobody seems to offer a plausible solution, not even as a hypothesis.

COMMENT:
It looks like Anton answered his own question.

ANTON:
Anybody has any fresh news?

REPLY:
I don't think so. The old news seems best. "Callias" is an individual. "Man" is a universal, according to Aristotle. What is a universal? A term expressing a general idea. The term is predicable of many individuals, because a general idea is a mental grasp of what is common to/among many individuals eg. Callias was a man. Anton is a man. My baby boy will become a man (barring accidents). Those propositions are arguably TRUE.

But to say: Man was Callias; or Man is Anton; or Man will become my baby boy; results in 3 arguably FALSE propositions.

The "universals problem" seems to be about whether they exist or not. Supposing UNIVERSALS do exist, the next question has been:- Do they only exist in the mind or are they outside the mind as well?

On the other hand, supposing UNIVERSALS don't exist either in the mind or outside the mind seems to solve the problem for those who deny their existence.

But, then it becomes difficult to explain either thought or speech. Aristotle described UNIVERSALS as IMPERCEPTIBLE and that science proceeds by recognition of the COMMENSURATE UNIVERSAL. Hence, SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE is not possible through an ACT of sensory perception, but requires a demonstration.

His example is that we cannot PERCEIVE that the 3 interior angles of EVERY TRIANGLE are EQUAL to 2 right angles. That must be demonstrated, by means of a geometrical argument.

ANTON:
What is it that is being taught at universities on this point? maybe the best is still to avoid it and be safe?

COUNTER-QUESTION:
"Safe" from what? (Just kidding.) I guess the UNIVERSITIES (meaning professors) are simply regurgitating the same old arguments, while failing to quote Aristotle on universals. Maybe? Maybe not? I am ignorant of what "universities" teach. However, I'd bet that nominalists still deny them, idealists assert them and Aristotelian realists still consider them to be imperceptible ideas, made perceivable through speech.

ANTON
By the way, just out of curiosity, why the name 'radical' for the site?

ANSWER:
According to Jonathan Dolhenty or one or other of this site's founders, quote,

[FOUNDERS]:
We think, however, that knowledge about competing philosophies and interpretations of the human condition is necessary in order that an individual is able to make judgments about and evaluations of other ideas which may, in fact, be in conflict with ours. This is not, to us, simply a matter of "fairness," but of intellectual integrity and scholarly diversity.

Since one of our major goals is to get at the "root" (radix) of problems, questions, policies, and issues, we interpret the term "radical" in its original sense, as defined below:

RADICAL: (rad'i k'l) adj. [ < L. "radix," of, or from, the root]; going to the foundation or root of something; fundamental; basic; getting to the basic facts, causes, principles, problems, solutions; also describes a person advocating such. The "radical" pictured in our logo on the entry page is Aristotle, the first great synoptic philosopher, the father of systematic logic, and an advocate of commonsense philosophical realism.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the interest of fairness and full disclosure, the following information is provided to our visitors:

The Radical Academy is a project of the Center for Applied Philosophy
(A Think-Tank in Cyberspace)... etc., etc.

[COMMENT:- Full content readable on the mainpage of the forum, at this address: http://radicalacademy.com/aboutacademy.html The above seems to explain the name, given the above cited definition, by the founders. KB]

ANTON:
best wishes
anton

REPLY:
And also to you.

Kevin

Ivo

Aug 30th, 2007 - 4:29 AM

Re: new stuff on universals

Anton asked::
Anybody has any fresh news?

Kevin replied:
I don't think so. The old news seems best.

CONTRAST Kevin to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_universals#Modern_times

Ivo

Aug 30th, 2007 - 5:27 AM

Re: new stuff on universals

TRAINED ARISTOTELIANS
AND
THE PIECES OF THE PIE

What about Chapter 10 “On our Knowledge of Universals” in
Bertrand Russell’s “The problems of philosophy”,
(Oxford UP 1912 , second ed. 1998, reissued 2001)
whose (the chapter’s) final paragraph starts as follows:
“If the above account is correct, all our knowledge of truths depends upon intuitive knowledge”?
Is this Forum no longer devoted to realism?

The PROBLEM OF UNIVERSALS is het problem of universal terms or CLASS names,
says Copleston on p. 27 of his
“Medieval Philosophy – An introduction” (Dover Publications 2001)

How we classify the object depends not only on its characteristics but also on our interests (John Hospers, “An introduction to Philosophical Analysis”, Routledge, 1997, 4th ed., p.10)

Classes exist “out there” in the sense that the characteristics things have in common exist in the world, waiting (as it were) to be made the basis for classification. But they are man-made in that the “act of classifying’ is the work of human beings, depending on their needs and interests (Hospers, op. cit., p. 11)

Penrose, who is quoted by Wikipedia, in his 2004 book
“The Road to Reality” (London, Jonathan Cape (Random House))
which is not, I think, the book quoted by Wikipedia:

p. xvii
What is a fraction?
Do not talk about pieces of a pie
but 3/8 is something with a 3 at the top and an 8 at the bottom and a horizontal line in between

p. xvii
a fraction is defined in terms of the ubiquitous mathematical notion of our EQUIVALENCE CLASS

the pair (6, 16) is NOT the same as the pair (3, 8)
yet, through cancelling,
we can in some sense equate 6/16 with 3/8

the mathematician’s answer has the cancelling rule built in into the definition of a fraction

p. xviii
the definition of a fraction in terms of an “indefinite class of pairs” has its value in mathematical rigour and precision,
but I shall avoid it.

In my description here, I shall be more concerned with conveying the idea and beauty and the magic inherent in many important ‘mathematical” notions.

The idea of a fraction such as 3/8 is simply that
it is some kind of entity which has the property that, when added to itself 8 times in all,
it gives 3.

The magic is that the idea of a fraction actually works despite the fact that we do not really directly experience things in the physical world that are exactly quantified by fractions – pieces of a pie leading only to approximations
VERSUS
the natural numbers such as 1, 2, 3 which do precisely quantify numerous entities of our direct experience.

It is better to think of 3/8 as being an entity with some kind of {Platonic) existence of its own.
and that the infinite collection of pairs is merely one way of our coming to terms with the consistence of this kind of entity

Ivo

Aug 30th, 2007 - 6:39 AM

Re: new stuff on universals

An informative classification brings together a diversity that it unifies (more than one point in a cerckel) while not bringing together such a great diversity that it doesn’t get significantly unified (not all the points in the same cerckel). UNITY IN DIVERSITY (Ivo’s emphasis) has been called organic unity; in establishing these different unities in diversities, the different cerckels, the classification maximises the degrees of organic unity.
(Robert Nozick, “Philosophical Explanations”, The Belknap Press of Harvard UP, 1981, p. 86)

Ivo

Aug 30th, 2007 - 7:26 PM

Re: new stuff on universals

Ivo Cerckel –
unity in diversity, NOT pieces of the pie

1.
Here’s Copleston’s definition of the problem of universals which, he admits om p. 33, he states in simple terms, but, he adds, in dealing with the early medieval philosophers, it would be out of place to do otherwise.

I am still quoting from Copleston’s booklet “Medieval Philosophy – An Introduction” (Dover Publications, 2001).

Section 2 of Chapter II starts as follows, pp 32-33:
Take two statements like “John is a man” and “Dogs are animals”. In the first statement “John” is a proper name, referring to a certain individual, while “man” is a class-name, denoting a species. In the second statement the word “dogs” denotes the class or species, while “animal” denotes a wider class, a genus, of which dogs constitute a sub-class. We are constantly using class-names. If I make the general statement that arsenic is poisonous, I do not mean to imply that one particular bit of arsenic is poisonous; I am making a universal statement, that all the members of the class “arsenic” are poisonous. Now, I know very well what I am referring to when I make a statement about “John”. Unless I am making a grammatical statement about the word “John”, I am referring to a definitive individual, whether real or, as in a work of fiction, imagined. But what am I referring to when I use a class-name like “Man”? To a collection of individuals, or to an essence or nature? When I say that “man is mortal”, am I saying that all individual men who have lived have, as far as I know, proved mortal, or am I saying that it is of the essence or nature of man as such to be mortal? If the latter, what precisely is this essence or nature? What is the relation to individual men considered as individuals?

2.
As Penrose said
“ Do not talk about pieces of a pie
but 3/8 is something with a 3 at the top and an 8 at the bottom and a horizontal line in between”

As Nozick asked:
What is the unity in diversity?

Ivo

Aug 30th, 2007 - 7:29 PM

Re: new stuff on universals

3.
I am still troubled by the fact that at first sight, I don’t find the Problem of Universals discussed by Fernand Van Steenberghen (F-X. de Guibert, ed.) in his “Philosophie fondamentale (Longueuil, Quebec, Editions du Preambule, 1989).

Here’s Copleston’s conclusion of Chapter “The Problem of Universals” in Volume II of his History:
In the later Middle Ages the problem of universals was to be taken up afresh and a NEW SOLUTION was to be given by William of OCKHAM and his followers;
but the principle THAT ONLY INDIVIDUALS EXIST AS SUBSISTENT THINGS had come to stay; the new current in the fourteenth century was set not towards realism but away from it.

The index (of names quoted) to Van Steenberghen has no reference to Ockham.

4.
It seems that the problem of universals has been made difficult to understand (brouillé) in the first lines of Porphyry (233 – 305)’s Isagoge (Alain de Libera, “Philosophy medievale”, Presses Universitaires de France, 1998, p. 438)

Porphyry is neo-platonist, his philosophy follows the teaching of Plotinus
(Ignatius Yarza, “History of Ancient Philosophy”, Manila, Sinag-Tala Publishers, 1994, p. 238)

Convinced that the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle could be reconciled,
Porphyry also wrote commentaries on some of their works.
Of these commentaries, the most famous is the ISAGOGE.
It had a great influence on later philosophers.
The Isagoge is a brief introduction to the problems posed by Aristotle’s “Categories”
It was the origin of one of the most controversial questions during the Middle-Ages –
THE PROBLEM OF THE UNIVERSALS
do genera and species subsist by themselves?
(Yarza, op. cit., p. 239)

Yarza quotes the first lines of the Isagoge on p. 239

“To begin with, there is the question of the genera and the species.
Do they exist in themselves?
Or are they concepts that only exist in the mind?
If they exist in themselves, are they corporeal or incorporeal?
If incorporeal, do they have a separate existence, or are they found in sensible things and depend on them for their existence?
About these questions, I prefer not to speak, for they are too deep and call for a special and detailed kind of study.
Nevertheless, I shall from the logical standpoint, try to present you with the more certain conclusions which the ancients – and the peripatetics in particular – have arrived at concerning these last questions and concerning the objects of my study”
Isogoge, 1.

Penrose and Nozick reply
“Do not talk about pieces of a pie, but look for unity in diversity”

Ivo

Aug 30th, 2007 - 7:38 PM

Re: new stuff on universals

5.
Penrose again in his book “The Road to Reality”

PROLOGUE p. 1

p.5
THEN AN ODD THOUGHT OVERTOOK HIM
Do not seek for reason in the specific patterns of stars, or of other scattered arrangements of objects
Look instead for a deeper universal order in the way that things behave

p. 3
The pattern of stars had been disturbed not one iota from what they were before the Catastrophe of the emergence of the terrible daemon.

EPILOGUE p. 1048

the vexed issue of “quantum gravity” attempts to unify the principles underlying Einstein’s general relativity with those of quantum mechanics
- a mystery at the very basis of the laws of the world.

Antea had some unorthodox and not yet fully formed ideas as to how to proceed (to solve the issue),
some of which were fundamentally at variance with those of her colleagues
...
p. 1049
THEN AN ODD THOUGHT OVERTOOK HER

6.
Returning to Van Steenberghen, there’s a section “The diversification of Know;edge” on p. 236 of his book.

The section concerns the classification of the SCIENCES.
Of course the noun “scientia” comes from the verb “scire”, “to know”.

In subsection 2, Van Steenberghen complains that the ancient and medieval classification of sciences fail to take the distinction between philosophy and the sciences into account.
But he says, epistemology gives us the data which allow us to discover the origin of the distinction between both kinds of knowledge, since it opens the way for the double speculative effort; METAPHYSICAL knowledge and POSITIVE knowledge.

The real world reveals itself to the human conscience as being at the same time
foondamentally (foncièrement) ONE (we express this through the transcendental concept of being)
and
very DIVERSIFIED (we express this through our multiple empirical concepts).

Unable to grasp through a simple INTUITION the extreme complexity of the order of the real world, we are forced to reconstruct the order of the real world through a patient and slow effort, in order to untangle (démêler) the mulptiple relations which constitute the universe and which explain the “how’ and “why” of its unity, which (the unity) is being confusedly grasped at the first contact (confusément aperc5ue dès le premier abord.)

7.
I am happy to have been able to find the quotes of Van Steenberghen which I quoted in section 6.

I had almost concluded section 5 by saying that the odd thought is the “intuition” upon which Russell said in the conclusion of
Chapter 10 “On our Knowledge of Universals”
in his book “The problems of philosophy”,
which I quoted yesterday,
all our knowledge of truths depends.

Ivo Cerckel
ivocerckel AT siquijor DOT ws

Author	Comment
anton Aug 26, 07 - 4:07 PM	new stuff on universals Is there a modern approach that provides -or propose- a modern comprehensible solution to the Uinversals problem ? I tangentially dropped on this issue and found that current state of the question is no less obsecure than it was in XIII century. Browsed through some of the modern 'classics' on the subject, and nobody seems to offer a plausible solution, not even as a hypothesis. Anybody has any fresh news ? What is it that is being taught at universities on this point ? maybe the best is still to avoid it and be safe ? By the way, just out of curiosity, why the name 'radical' for the site ? best wishes anton Email: antoni2@gawab.com
Ivo Aug 27th, 2007 - 5:54 AM	Re: new stuff on universals The Problem of Universals was never well formulated http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.philosophy.objectivism/browse_thread/thread/6e9699d9e9e60e85/cfd04beddbe69b02#cfd04beddbe69b02 Email: ivocerckel@siquijor.ws
Kevin Aug 28th, 2007 - 1:44 AM	Re: new stuff on universals 2007-08-28 01:03:18 Re: new stuff on universals ANTON: Is there a modern approach that provides -or propose -a modern comprehensible solution to the Uinversals problem? REPLY, by ANTON: I tangentially dropped on this issue and found that current state of the question is no less obsecure than it was in XIII century. Browsed through some of the modern 'classics' on the subject, and nobody seems to offer a plausible solution, not even as a hypothesis. COMMENT: It looks like Anton answered his own question. ANTON: Anybody has any fresh news? REPLY: I don't think so. The old news seems best. "Callias" is an individual. "Man" is a universal, according to Aristotle. What is a universal? A term expressing a general idea. The term is predicable of many individuals, because a general idea is a mental grasp of what is common to/among many individuals eg. Callias was a man. Anton is a man. My baby boy will become a man (barring accidents). Those propositions are arguably TRUE. But to say: Man was Callias; or Man is Anton; or Man will become my baby boy; results in 3 arguably FALSE propositions. The "universals problem" seems to be about whether they exist or not. Supposing UNIVERSALS do exist, the next question has been:- Do they only exist in the mind or are they outside the mind as well? On the other hand, supposing UNIVERSALS don't exist either in the mind or outside the mind seems to solve the problem for those who deny their existence. But, then it becomes difficult to explain either thought or speech. Aristotle described UNIVERSALS as IMPERCEPTIBLE and that science proceeds by recognition of the COMMENSURATE UNIVERSAL. Hence, SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE is not possible through an ACT of sensory perception, but requires a demonstration. His example is that we cannot PERCEIVE that the 3 interior angles of EVERY TRIANGLE are EQUAL to 2 right angles. That must be demonstrated, by means of a geometrical argument. ANTON: What is it that is being taught at universities on this point? maybe the best is still to avoid it and be safe? COUNTER-QUESTION: "Safe" from what? (Just kidding.) I guess the UNIVERSITIES (meaning professors) are simply regurgitating the same old arguments, while failing to quote Aristotle on universals. Maybe? Maybe not? I am ignorant of what "universities" teach. However, I'd bet that nominalists still deny them, idealists assert them and Aristotelian realists still consider them to be imperceptible ideas, made perceivable through speech. ANTON By the way, just out of curiosity, why the name 'radical' for the site? ANSWER: According to Jonathan Dolhenty or one or other of this site's founders, quote, [FOUNDERS]: We think, however, that knowledge about competing philosophies and interpretations of the human condition is necessary in order that an individual is able to make judgments about and evaluations of other ideas which may, in fact, be in conflict with ours. This is not, to us, simply a matter of "fairness," but of intellectual integrity and scholarly diversity. Since one of our major goals is to get at the "root" (radix) of problems, questions, policies, and issues, we interpret the term "radical" in its original sense, as defined below: RADICAL: (rad'i k'l) adj. [ < L. "radix," of, or from, the root]; going to the foundation or root of something; fundamental; basic; getting to the basic facts, causes, principles, problems, solutions; also describes a person advocating such. The "radical" pictured in our logo on the entry page is Aristotle, the first great synoptic philosopher, the father of systematic logic, and an advocate of commonsense philosophical realism. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the interest of fairness and full disclosure, the following information is provided to our visitors: The Radical Academy is a project of the Center for Applied Philosophy (A Think-Tank in Cyberspace)... etc., etc. [COMMENT:- Full content readable on the mainpage of the forum, at this address: http://radicalacademy.com/aboutacademy.html The above seems to explain the name, given the above cited definition, by the founders. KB] ANTON: best wishes anton REPLY: And also to you. Kevin Email: PaedoSocrates@aol.com
Ivo Aug 30th, 2007 - 4:29 AM	Re: new stuff on universals Anton asked:: Anybody has any fresh news? Kevin replied: I don't think so. The old news seems best. CONTRAST Kevin to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_universals#Modern_times Email: ivocerckel@siquijor.ws
Ivo Aug 30th, 2007 - 5:27 AM	Re: new stuff on universals TRAINED ARISTOTELIANS AND THE PIECES OF THE PIE What about Chapter 10 “On our Knowledge of Universals” in Bertrand Russell’s “The problems of philosophy”, (Oxford UP 1912 , second ed. 1998, reissued 2001) whose (the chapter’s) final paragraph starts as follows: “If the above account is correct, all our knowledge of truths depends upon intuitive knowledge”? Is this Forum no longer devoted to realism? The PROBLEM OF UNIVERSALS is het problem of universal terms or CLASS names, says Copleston on p. 27 of his “Medieval Philosophy – An introduction” (Dover Publications 2001) How we classify the object depends not only on its characteristics but also on our interests (John Hospers, “An introduction to Philosophical Analysis”, Routledge, 1997, 4th ed., p.10) Classes exist “out there” in the sense that the characteristics things have in common exist in the world, waiting (as it were) to be made the basis for classification. But they are man-made in that the “act of classifying’ is the work of human beings, depending on their needs and interests (Hospers, op. cit., p. 11) Penrose, who is quoted by Wikipedia, in his 2004 book “The Road to Reality” (London, Jonathan Cape (Random House)) which is not, I think, the book quoted by Wikipedia: p. xvii What is a fraction? Do not talk about pieces of a pie but 3/8 is something with a 3 at the top and an 8 at the bottom and a horizontal line in between p. xvii a fraction is defined in terms of the ubiquitous mathematical notion of our EQUIVALENCE CLASS the pair (6, 16) is NOT the same as the pair (3, 8) yet, through cancelling, we can in some sense equate 6/16 with 3/8 the mathematician’s answer has the cancelling rule built in into the definition of a fraction p. xviii the definition of a fraction in terms of an “indefinite class of pairs” has its value in mathematical rigour and precision, but I shall avoid it. In my description here, I shall be more concerned with conveying the idea and beauty and the magic inherent in many important ‘mathematical” notions. The idea of a fraction such as 3/8 is simply that it is some kind of entity which has the property that, when added to itself 8 times in all, it gives 3. The magic is that the idea of a fraction actually works despite the fact that we do not really directly experience things in the physical world that are exactly quantified by fractions – pieces of a pie leading only to approximations VERSUS the natural numbers such as 1, 2, 3 which do precisely quantify numerous entities of our direct experience. It is better to think of 3/8 as being an entity with some kind of {Platonic) existence of its own. and that the infinite collection of pairs is merely one way of our coming to terms with the consistence of this kind of entity Email: ivocerckel@siquijor.ws
Ivo Aug 30th, 2007 - 6:39 AM	Re: new stuff on universals An informative classification brings together a diversity that it unifies (more than one point in a cerckel) while not bringing together such a great diversity that it doesn’t get significantly unified (not all the points in the same cerckel). UNITY IN DIVERSITY (Ivo’s emphasis) has been called organic unity; in establishing these different unities in diversities, the different cerckels, the classification maximises the degrees of organic unity. (Robert Nozick, “Philosophical Explanations”, The Belknap Press of Harvard UP, 1981, p. 86) Email: ivocerckel@siquijor.ws
Ivo Aug 30th, 2007 - 7:26 PM	Re: new stuff on universals Ivo Cerckel – unity in diversity, NOT pieces of the pie 1. Here’s Copleston’s definition of the problem of universals which, he admits om p. 33, he states in simple terms, but, he adds, in dealing with the early medieval philosophers, it would be out of place to do otherwise. I am still quoting from Copleston’s booklet “Medieval Philosophy – An Introduction” (Dover Publications, 2001). Section 2 of Chapter II starts as follows, pp 32-33: Take two statements like “John is a man” and “Dogs are animals”. In the first statement “John” is a proper name, referring to a certain individual, while “man” is a class-name, denoting a species. In the second statement the word “dogs” denotes the class or species, while “animal” denotes a wider class, a genus, of which dogs constitute a sub-class. We are constantly using class-names. If I make the general statement that arsenic is poisonous, I do not mean to imply that one particular bit of arsenic is poisonous; I am making a universal statement, that all the members of the class “arsenic” are poisonous. Now, I know very well what I am referring to when I make a statement about “John”. Unless I am making a grammatical statement about the word “John”, I am referring to a definitive individual, whether real or, as in a work of fiction, imagined. But what am I referring to when I use a class-name like “Man”? To a collection of individuals, or to an essence or nature? When I say that “man is mortal”, am I saying that all individual men who have lived have, as far as I know, proved mortal, or am I saying that it is of the essence or nature of man as such to be mortal? If the latter, what precisely is this essence or nature? What is the relation to individual men considered as individuals? 2. As Penrose said “ Do not talk about pieces of a pie but 3/8 is something with a 3 at the top and an 8 at the bottom and a horizontal line in between” As Nozick asked: What is the unity in diversity? Email: ivocerckel@siquijor.ws
Ivo Aug 30th, 2007 - 7:29 PM	Re: new stuff on universals 3. I am still troubled by the fact that at first sight, I don’t find the Problem of Universals discussed by Fernand Van Steenberghen (F-X. de Guibert, ed.) in his “Philosophie fondamentale (Longueuil, Quebec, Editions du Preambule, 1989). Here’s Copleston’s conclusion of Chapter “The Problem of Universals” in Volume II of his History: In the later Middle Ages the problem of universals was to be taken up afresh and a NEW SOLUTION was to be given by William of OCKHAM and his followers; but the principle THAT ONLY INDIVIDUALS EXIST AS SUBSISTENT THINGS had come to stay; the new current in the fourteenth century was set not towards realism but away from it. The index (of names quoted) to Van Steenberghen has no reference to Ockham. 4. It seems that the problem of universals has been made difficult to understand (brouillé) in the first lines of Porphyry (233 – 305)’s Isagoge (Alain de Libera, “Philosophy medievale”, Presses Universitaires de France, 1998, p. 438) Porphyry is neo-platonist, his philosophy follows the teaching of Plotinus (Ignatius Yarza, “History of Ancient Philosophy”, Manila, Sinag-Tala Publishers, 1994, p. 238) Convinced that the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle could be reconciled, Porphyry also wrote commentaries on some of their works. Of these commentaries, the most famous is the ISAGOGE. It had a great influence on later philosophers. The Isagoge is a brief introduction to the problems posed by Aristotle’s “Categories” It was the origin of one of the most controversial questions during the Middle-Ages – THE PROBLEM OF THE UNIVERSALS do genera and species subsist by themselves? (Yarza, op. cit., p. 239) Yarza quotes the first lines of the Isagoge on p. 239 “To begin with, there is the question of the genera and the species. Do they exist in themselves? Or are they concepts that only exist in the mind? If they exist in themselves, are they corporeal or incorporeal? If incorporeal, do they have a separate existence, or are they found in sensible things and depend on them for their existence? About these questions, I prefer not to speak, for they are too deep and call for a special and detailed kind of study. Nevertheless, I shall from the logical standpoint, try to present you with the more certain conclusions which the ancients – and the peripatetics in particular – have arrived at concerning these last questions and concerning the objects of my study” Isogoge, 1. Penrose and Nozick reply “Do not talk about pieces of a pie, but look for unity in diversity” Email: ivocerckel@siquijor.ws
Ivo Aug 30th, 2007 - 7:38 PM	Re: new stuff on universals 5. Penrose again in his book “The Road to Reality” PROLOGUE p. 1 p.5 THEN AN ODD THOUGHT OVERTOOK HIM Do not seek for reason in the specific patterns of stars, or of other scattered arrangements of objects Look instead for a deeper universal order in the way that things behave p. 3 The pattern of stars had been disturbed not one iota from what they were before the Catastrophe of the emergence of the terrible daemon. EPILOGUE p. 1048 the vexed issue of “quantum gravity” attempts to unify the principles underlying Einstein’s general relativity with those of quantum mechanics - a mystery at the very basis of the laws of the world. Antea had some unorthodox and not yet fully formed ideas as to how to proceed (to solve the issue), some of which were fundamentally at variance with those of her colleagues ... p. 1049 THEN AN ODD THOUGHT OVERTOOK HER 6. Returning to Van Steenberghen, there’s a section “The diversification of Know;edge” on p. 236 of his book. The section concerns the classification of the SCIENCES. Of course the noun “scientia” comes from the verb “scire”, “to know”. In subsection 2, Van Steenberghen complains that the ancient and medieval classification of sciences fail to take the distinction between philosophy and the sciences into account. But he says, epistemology gives us the data which allow us to discover the origin of the distinction between both kinds of knowledge, since it opens the way for the double speculative effort; METAPHYSICAL knowledge and POSITIVE knowledge. The real world reveals itself to the human conscience as being at the same time foondamentally (foncièrement) ONE (we express this through the transcendental concept of being) and very DIVERSIFIED (we express this through our multiple empirical concepts). Unable to grasp through a simple INTUITION the extreme complexity of the order of the real world, we are forced to reconstruct the order of the real world through a patient and slow effort, in order to untangle (démêler) the mulptiple relations which constitute the universe and which explain the “how’ and “why” of its unity, which (the unity) is being confusedly grasped at the first contact (confusément aperc5ue dès le premier abord.) 7. I am happy to have been able to find the quotes of Van Steenberghen which I quoted in section 6. I had almost concluded section 5 by saying that the odd thought is the “intuition” upon which Russell said in the conclusion of Chapter 10 “On our Knowledge of Universals” in his book “The problems of philosophy”, which I quoted yesterday, all our knowledge of truths depends. Ivo Cerckel ivocerckel AT siquijor DOT ws Email: ivocerckel@siquijor.ws

	The Radical Academy Discussion Forum Philosophy, Politics, and the Human Condition
Search For Similar Forums · Return to Website